The Ross procedure is a safe and durable option in adults with infective endocarditis: a multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Surgical treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) remains a challenge. The Ross procedure offers the benefit of a living substitute in the aortic position but it is a more complex operation which may lead to increased operative risk. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and late outcomes of the Ross procedure for the treatment of active IE. METHODS: From 2000 to 2019, a total of 31 consecutive patients underwent a Ross procedure to treat active IE (mean age 43 ± 12 years, 84% male). All patients were followed up prospectively. Four patients (13%) were intravenous (IV) drug users and 6 patients (19%) had prosthetic IE. The most common infective organism was Streptococcus (58%). Median follow-up was 3.5 (0.9-4.5) years and 100% complete. RESULTS: There were no in-hospital deaths. One patient suffered a postoperative stroke (3%) and 1 patient (3%) required reintervention for bleeding. Three patients had a new occurrence endocarditis: 2 patients were limited to the pulmonary homograft and successfully managed with IV antibiotics, whereas 1 IV drug user patient developed concomitant autograft and homograft endocarditis. Overall, cumulative incidence of IE recurrence was 13 ± 8% at 8 years. The cumulative incidence for autograft endocarditis was 5 ± 4% at 8 years. Two patients (6%) died during follow-up, both from drug overdoses. At 8 years, actuarial survival was 88 ± 8%. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with IE, the Ross procedure is a safe and reasonable alternative with good mid-term outcomes. Freedom from recurrent infection on the pulmonary autograft is excellent, labelporting the notion that a living valve in the aortic position provides good resistance to infection. Nevertheless, in IV drug user patients, pulmonary homograft endocarditis remains a challenge. Continued follow-up is needed to ascertain the long-term benefits of this approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".